eSJayDee

Not really concerned. I think it's mostly a #s thing. Obviously, when healthy, McGee & Clements are active. Thomas seemed entrenched at the 3rd CB position. Greer is a gunner & solid ST contributor. This would make Youboty the 5th most desirable CB to be active. So, it seems likely that if active, he wouldn't be 'needed' to be on the field, so having him active would merely be for the purpose of giving him exposure. Since this is the case, who do you choose to sit that likely wouldn't contribute?

IMO, Dorenbos was a great punt snapper, but was not particularly good at FG. If I'm not mistaken, we experiemented w/ other people on FGs during his tenure.

Yeah. Let's make a new position for him - Special Asst to the O-Coord in charge of imprudently called & poorly executed gadget plays.

I don't know the specifics of how the schedules are set up, only that it's systematic. The difference between Buf NE & NJJ might well be that we have to play NE & NJJ (the 2 best), and NE plays the worst (NJJ & Buf). As for Mia, perhaps being the 4th place team they likely get to play some games against sucky teams whereas us being 3rd, get tougher opponents.

Can't give you anything too concrete but... CV has been w/ us for a few yrs & when initially signed, got a 'modest' signing bonus. I'd guess cutting him would probably cost <$1m in cap space. Reyes signed a 2 yr deal this past off-season. As per another link, I couldn't find any SB info on him, but his salaries were basically minimum wage. I'd assume it would cost a few hundred K in cap space if we cut him. TKO got a big SB, so he'll probably cost a few mill; possibly more to cut him than to keep him, depending on his salary next yr. I'd (somewhat wildly) guess Holcomb would be in the $500k-$1m range.

As I said, I think there's something 'funny' going on w/ his situation. I couldn't find details on his SB, but I found so, you gotta assume he was pretty cheap. Like many others, I was pleasantly surprised when someone who I thought was basically a body to compete on the Oline basically was the starter from day one. Admittedly, his performance left something to be desired, but why did it take OTAs, TC, 4 PS games, then 6 regular games to figure he wasn't our best option? Imagine rather that Preston beat him out for the starting OL position & he instead was forced to start those 6 games due to injury (w/ equivalent sub-std performance). Would that really have been a bad signing? Likely a few hundred K $ over bare minimum wage for someone who played basically 6 entire games? It certainly wasn't what one hoped for and he'll likely/hopefully be jettisoned b4 the end of next PS, but it didn't waste much cap space & he didn't waste the roster spot.

A few comments about your comments. (Bear in mind, I basing these opinions on what I recall their contracts to be. I might be off.) Agree about Fowler & Royals. We got quality starters (although not stars) for modest prices. Although Price signed for a fairly modest amount, his production was less than you'd hope for from a #2 WR. Let's call him 'fair' value. Bowens obviously was a waste, but c'est la vie. As for Reyes, when we signed him, I assumed he'd 'compete' for a starting job, i.e. sort of like a 6th best OL. Fact is, he was a starter for 1/2 the season & inactive the other 1/2. So on avg, I think that's 'fair'. I will add that something is fishy about this situation. I'm curious about the real story about going from uncontested starter, to last guy off the bench. Davis was cheap & although he provided NOTHING on offense, he was a stud on ST. That's good value in my book. Triplett was a disappointment. He was tauted as a player on the rise & I don't think he even played up to previous levels. Overall, I'd say our only 'big' mistake could arguably be Triplett, our one big ticket signee.

I'm afraid I don't think your model really reflects how the NFL works. There are 2 separate issues that are only somewhat related. 1) is the actual economics of running a business and 2) is fielding the best team w/ your allotment of an arbitrary currency (cap $). And the game played is how these 2 things interact and where you place the emphasis. Teams that do well are good at getting value out of their cap $s. They get solid production out of "minimum" wage vets and they get superior production from "reasonably" priced ones (NE comes immediately to mind, perhaps to a lesser extent NJJ). The way to do poorly is to overpay for players that don't (Oak, Wash & Cle come to mind). Every team is allocated the same amount of cap $, although accounting practices allow you to 'play' w/ how those allocations are used. (i.e. the John Butler mortgage the future for now mentality or the fiscally conservative approach of TD.) As an aside, I think there would have been a considerable difference in the league had the cap not gone up SOOO much this past yr. The mortgaging of the future was starting to catch up w/ some teams & they were bailed out by the devaluation of their currency (increase in cap allotment). As for the best way to run a business is all about maximizing your return on your investment. In Ralph's case, his upside is more limited than other teams and as we've discussed elsewhere, the "New NFL" is about to make it infeasible for "small town" teams like the Bills to exist. Your bonus/shopping analogy really doesn't apply if your only desire is to please your family & the only way to do so is buy presents. If this were the case, you'd spend ALL your bonus, but of course still try to maximize your value for the cost. In actuality, there is value in keeping money in the bank (early retirement, safety net, save for something nicer in the future, etc) & you decision on how much to spend is balanced on the inherent value on what you're buying & the value of NOT spending the money.

Wow, quite an eclectic list. I wasn't in on the compilation. One minor correction: "Band on the Run" was done by (Paul McCartney and) Wings

You're looking at the wrong percentile of the demographic. Also, I don't think median is a particularly good indicator for affording a 'luxury' item such as game tickets. What you're most interested in is a number of the population (which can be derived from a %age & the ttl pop. figure) that likely have roughly $80/person or $200/household for a single game or $800/$2000 for a season ticket. To me, that means upper middle class. How much of the population has at least a moderate amount of disposable income. Although I don't think of WNY as a 'poor' region (I haven't lived there for 20+ yrs now), I also don't think it has much of an ecomony based on the type of jobs that yield those type of wages.

Simply, although not completely, the Bills are the best 7-7 team WRT tie breakers. They also hold tie breakers on NJJ (assuming they lose to MIA), Ciny & Jac. That is assuming that the Bills win their last 2. So the Bills need to win their last 2 & have 3 of the 4 8-6 teams above lose once each except Den would have to lose 2x). If NJJ beat MIA, they finish above us & the other 3 teams must lose. Determining Pitts tie-breaker status is somewhat time consuming (I did it w/ the Bills & I was familiar w/ their schedule), but suffice it to say, they need at least the outcome for the Bills to make it except they need the Bills to lose at least once, too. If you or your friend are REALLY that curious, I don't think there will be any math involved, unless you have to go WAY down the tie breaker scenarios, the rules are on NFL.com linked under SCHEDULES & of course you can get the results of each candidates games there, too. W/ merely a cursory look, it is not apparent how they stack up in tie breakers w/ any of the 8-6 teams were they to end up 9-7. I THINK it was still possible for the Bills to make the playoffs prior to this weekend if they finished 8-8, although it was literally like 1,000,000 to 1; I don't know if it's still possible. I doubt it's currently possible for the Steelers.

Not that I'm saying either of these are the answers, but they might explain at least part of the issue. "Sellout" refers to tckets being sold. It has nothing to do w/ attendance. It's possible that SD just has a TREMENDOUS # of no-shows. As for the difference between "demonstrated capacity" (which you derive from max paid attendance) and listed capacity, is it possible that they have some sort of program where they give away a substantial # of tickets, for instance to charity/staff or to accommodate like the 1/2 time show?

NFL.com gives 1st half stats in their 'gameday' page or whatever. Take each game & subtract the 1st half #s from the total & add up the sums. A little bit of work, but nothing too daunting.

How is that a stupid rule? SD gets off a semi-successful punt (it DID cross the LOS), KC tries to field said punt, but muffs it, SD recovers. Lack of awareness &/or a poor gamble by the KC guy; they could've just let the ball die right there & have possesion there. Leon Lett, is that you?

Isn't a illegal chop block considered a personal foul? I'm speculating it's sorta like a flagrant facemask that CAN be tacked on to the result of the play OR taken in lieu of the result at the choice of the violated team.

Just saw in the play-by-play vs Den Looks like they lost 13 yards on 3rd down then he spiked the ball on 4th & 17 as time expired

I read about 1/3 of the link you provided. I saved the link & will likely give the game a try in the not too distant future. Thanks.

QB Ratings are based on %age of TDs & %age of INTs. His INT %age went down from 3.0 to 2.8%, hardly statistically relevent. If just one of those dropped potential INTs gets caught, it makes the %age worse. I conceded that his TD #s did improve, but again, I think the discrepancy could easily be explained by typical small samplings varying from the norm.

Apart from the fumbles, I don't see any substantial improvement (in his stats). A couple of % in completion isn't much, the 0.4 ypa can be almost exactly explained by a single 83 yard bomb, the sacks & INTs are almost the same in %age. His TDs have improved, but the #s aren't so substantial that they can't be explained by typical deviation. That said, I think that he (along w/ the rest of the offense) are playing better, which IMO is attributable mostly to an Oline that's more capable in pass blocking.

Didn't the cap go up like $20+ mill this last yr from 70 something to $101m? If this is the case, and he made $31m LAST yr, expected profit for THIS yr (& subsequent yrs unless something is done) may well be only around $7m.

Another way of looking at it - We have a "relatively" worthless franchise; it's maybe worth "only" $300-$400mil. If you had that sort of money, what sort of ROI is $7m? About 2% - far worse than you can get in the bank. Businesses like that can't prosper in the long run.

What I meant by that is roughly speaking, a QB will have about a 3% INT %age. On 25 passes, that's 0.6, or rounded up to 1. (Outside the RZ, Losman is ~3.3%, which equates to about 0.8 if that stat remained consistent.)

I'd be inclined to file that under "mean nothing". He's only had 25 attempts, so any #s really aren't too statisitically relevent. I think you'll find the high rating is attributable mostly to the fact that he has no Ints, whereas he 'should' have about 1. Were it to be the other way, i.e. 2 Ints, that would lower his rating to sub-std. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that those other Qbs aren't better than they are. In the Red Zone, you'd figure they're TD %age would be MUCH higher than on passes from other areas of the field.

As vball chicks go, Gabby & Kerri are attractive, but they pale compared to Rachel Wacholder. I wish I could find better pics, I've got one on my PC of her 'good side' Rachel Babe Another A 3rd A 4th

I start at the bottom. Always have. As for depends on the height of the tree. I think you focus on eye level & below (the presents underneath are the important things ). So if you have a tall tree, anything much above 6' is less important.